Serious , I don’t think you’ll find any
Edit: ^nevermind, then again he’s not a libertarian. Then again, most of the people I know who oppose the Israeli lobby and zionism in general, are not libertarian.
(above post is quite ignorant)
*
- ‘Liberal’ Analysis (as opposed to ‘Political Realism’ Analysis):
‘Zionists’ are the closest thing to capitalism that cluster of countries. However, US gives money to Israel then gives money ‘to be apparently fair’ to whatever mafia chief of bandits ‘Palistinian Peoples leader’ is in power runs around buying weapons/stealing aid money ‘wanting peace and happiness without capitalism’. It also ‘slap Israel on the wrist’ to ‘be fair’, since it gives money. This prevents solution of the problem. They should rather get the government not to send money to both sides; Israel would make do, they have a economy; the unproductive persons shooting, however, would get less money and lose ‘fair support’. Israel’s lobby should rather engage in publishing to sway public opinion to nonintervention (but they’re not economists and don’t understand this, although quite alot of Israeli’s do).
I am not a zionist, I am anti-state so I am against the Israeli state. but ‘zionists’ and ‘israelis’ are not ‘genocidal’ and have not had a policy of genocide even as they have done other ugly and immoral things.
Yes its just inflammatory. 40,000 palestinians over 50 years is pushing it, though not on the same order of magnitude as what we usually complain about…
^nirgraham,
Just to bring out in the open for discussion, Raphael Lemkin defines genocide (because he created the term) in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention as the following:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Personally, I don’t see a significant difference between mass murder and genocide to not strongly oppose both.
The word gets thrown around entirely too much. Usually by the hysterical liberal interventionists to create support for starting wars, but we shouldn’t sink to their level.
This. Really?
“Yes its just inflammatory. 40,000 palestinians over 50 years is pushing it…”
Anybody taking sides in Statist conflicts is a statist himself. The discontent with Israeli policies by libertarians is such an hypocrisy, it makes me sick!
If you go and side with Statist palestinians fighting for their alleged “freedom” from Israeli occupation just so that they can set up their own welfare/warfare State and slaughter their own people, then you deserve a medal for Statist of the year.
^Yes to snowflake’s comment:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
DD5, pointing out murder is not supporting statism. If anything, statism is the cause of it. Frankly:
Anarchy> A peacefull single state> A successful Palestinian state > apartheid
“DD5, pointing out murder is not supporting statism”
And you’re taking sides with murderers so spare me the BS. Same goes for snowflake.
Juice did wtc.
Also,I don’t think, that one pointing out a murder is being a statist. Though, it would be the case, if one excluded palestinians. In my opinion.
The most idiotic thing I heard in months.
Can I take the side of innocent civilians?
Can I take the side of innocent civilians?
Are you anti-state or anti-Israel? There are innocent civilians on both sides so who’s side are you going to take?